I realllllllyyyy appreciate the members of this group!!!! :-)
On Nov 14, 8:09 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 14, 7:39 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > Also, other scientists have > > > judged good science in the past especially the recent past. > > Yes and when they do judge science they are acting as meta-scientists, > also know as philosophers. I agree that scientist generally make the > best philosophers of science in their area of specialty. They have > direct experience with their subject so they can usually think about > it (their field) more accurately then someone who is unfamiliar with > it. > > On Nov 14, 7:39 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > Events in > > > nature are ultimately the final authority of good science, confirmed > > by observation and experiments in loose natural and controlled > > experimental settings. > > So when I say that I will reach into my pocket and pull out my cell > phone and I do it, that is good science and proof that I can tell the > future because after all nature confirmed my prediction? Of course > not! Often a group of people has think hard to determine what the > proper scientific method is for the experiment and that is meta- > science also called philosophy. And if the results of the experiement > are not obvious than a group has to think hard to figure out what > nature is saying. And if there is no formula then that is meta- > science. Of course all of these things can be considered the function > of science too, but then you need to have a broader definition of > science, one that would consider cognitive psyche scientific > > On Nov 14, 7:39 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Liz and Michael, > > > "There is a lot more to the world and the world of scientific > > psychology than Skinner..." That is exactly right and exactly what > > Skinner advocated. Skinner doesn't even exist anymore. What > > behaviorists (including Skinner) advocated was a study of human > > behavior using science. Even Skinner used words such anger and so > > forth in his writings; however, he was referring to internal events > > (natural phenomenon) that behavioral scientists don't understand yet-- > > not some mystical aspect of animals called emotion. > > > Michael, you wrote, "Philosophers are now and have always been > > considered the final authority in deciding what is good science." > > That is backwards and utterly wrong. Philosophers are most definitely > > not the final authority of good science. Also, other scientists have > > judged good science in the past especially the recent past. Events in > > nature are ultimately the final authority of good science, confirmed > > by observation and experiments in loose natural and controlled > > experimental settings. Scientists are much better judges of > > determining whether these experiments are important in unraveling > > natural events than philosophers. There are few philosophers who > > judge whether a chemical, physics, behavioral, or other experiment > > yields good results and was conducted well. Most of the writers and > > reviewers in science journals are scientists. > > > Jason > > > On Nov 14, 4:31 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "There is a lot more to the world and the world of > > > scientific psychology than Skinner..." > > > > In my uneducated opinion, I would have to agree. And by making this > > > statement, I am not proposing that any observations made by other current > > > or > > > future disciplines need be supernatural in nature. Just thought I'd make > > > that clear before I get the "What else is there?" bit. :-) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > Isparklaria > > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 4:18 PM > > > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > > > Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology is the Creationism of Psychology > > > > On Nov 14, 11:28 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > Michael, > > > > > I think that you are mixing philosophers and scientists. > > > > Jason this is a quick answer, since I am waiting to judge a debate > > > that will start soon. Science or natural science, which was once > > > called natural philosophy, is now and always has been a branch of > > > epistemology. Philosophers, scientists and regular folks like us have > > > always debated and determined what is good science for a in a > > > particular subject area. The example you quoted above with the tree is > > > a poor analogy. People use words like goal, anger and so forth and > > > these words ca be investigated and modeled. > > > > Cognitive scientist make and test models of minds using communication > > > theory. Communication theory (aka cybernetics) is an empirical > > > science. Computer scientists build and program machines that have > > > behavior, so their research is empirical. It is no guarantee that the > > > human mind works the same way even if they can produce aspects of > > > human behavior. Until brain/mind research makes huge strides, > > > cybernetic modeling is the best way to move forward. Neuroscientists > > > will eventually look for structures that can perform like the models > > > made by computer scientists and cognitive scientists. This is a common > > > practice most forms of science. Physicists, for example look for > > > particles that are needed to fill certain roles. > > > > Philosophers are now and have always been considered the final > > > authority in deciding what is good science. Those philosophers are > > > also usually scientists in the fields they consider. They now what > > > they are talking about and offer clear arguments that persuade the > > > lesser philosophers and scientists, or don't. You might benefit from > > > getting out of the strict Skinner behavior box with you thinking about > > > behavior more often. There is a lot more to the world and the world of > > > scientific psychology than Skinner, though he and his disciples have > > > been significant contributors > > > > On Nov 14, 2:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > Michael, > > > > > Newton (and others) had the same issue when arguing with "scientists" > > > > of their time. For example, "scientists" could argue that oak wood > > > > burned hotter than pinewood because oak wood possessed an angrier > > > > personality (or the essences of the woods were different). Newton > > > > changed the focus from (a) searches for and understanding of essences > > > > (or personalities) of oak and pinewood to (b) differences in structure > > > > and responses to environmental inputs, for example, the temperature > > > > output differences (responses) of the two woods when set on fire. > > > > > The second method bore more fruit and progress/understanding could be > > > > more objectively measured verses relying on someone's subjective > > > > opinion of progress. In "Science and Human Behavior (1953)," Skinner > > > > suggested that behavior scientists apply a similar type of method to > > > > studying animals including humans. Watson, Pavlov, etc also used > > > > these types of methods as well as William James to a certain degree. > > > > Objective psychology is the nearest (but not quite) equivalent to > > > > Behavior Analysis. > > > > > Jason > > > > > On Nov 14, 11:28 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > I think that you are mixing philosophers and scientists. At > > > > > universities such as Stanford, the university accountants also > > > > > criticize scientists for spending too much money on lab equipment. > > > > > The accounting office often tells the scientists, "Why can't you > > > > > scientists be more like the mathematicians? The mathematicians only > > > > > ask for paper, pencils and waste baskets. Better yet, why can't you > > > > > scientists be more like the philosophers? Philosophers ask us to buy > > > > > paper and pencils and don't even want waste baskets." > > > > > > Read any cognitive psychology journal and you will find "attitudes" > > > > > and other psychic or mind constructs used as explanations for > > > > > behavior. Are these ghosts in the organisms strawman arguments? > > > > > Perhaps...but I doubt it. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > On Nov 14, 9:55 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 9:00 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > By the same token, cognitive psychologists argued that nobody can > > > see > > > > > > > (so to speak) how complex organic behavior could've evolved (all > > > > > > > natural) via natural selection; therefore, there supposedly must > > > > > > > be > > > a > > > > > > > psychic force or mind that CAUSED or HAD A HAND IN these > > > > > > > behaviors. > > > > > > > Behavior analysts argue that the more and more we understand how > > > these > > > > > > > organic structures work (the interaction between the all natural > > > > > > > organic structure and the all natural environment), the less and > > > less > > > > > > > we will argue for psychic forces or reply on concepts such as the > > > > > > > "mind" to explain behavior, which includes events that occur > > > > > > > inside > > > > > > > the organisim such as "thoughts," "emotions," etc. > > > > > > > Jason your argument above appears to be of a straw man variety > > > > > > against > > > > > > cognitive psychology. Would you please produce some evidence that a > > > > > > significant number of influential cognitive psychologists believe or > > > > > > argue what you are saying? If you are merely saying that cognitive > > > > > > scientist say that evolutionary psychology, as it now stands has > > > > > > some > > > > > > holes in it, then I agree. But I can’t find evidence that they are > > > > > > against evolutionary biology in principle. However, if you would > > > > > > supply some evidence of this sort I’ll be happy to read and evaluate > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > This article from a top academic source > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
